The President stated that he will ask the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to examine the ethical, legal, and societal implications raised by this research initiative. We stand ready to assist the President and will engage in discussions with the White House to determine how we can be most helpful in examining the ethical considerations of this important area.

Maintaining our highest ethical standards: Pioneering research often has the potential to raise new ethical challenges. To ensure that this new effort proceeds in ways that continue to adhere to our highest standards of research protections, the president will direct his Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to explore all ethical, legal and societal implications raised by this research initiative and other recent advances in neuroscience.

This is a great oppurtunity for TIs to be heard, if they overcome discrediting, discarding, denial strategies as the case may be.

Many thanks to Peter Rosenholm for this direct link to the video footage of the February 28/11 bioethics.gov panel hearing in which some OS/EH targets managed to speak on the topic of human experimentation. The targets of course were talking about involuntary human experimentation.

It's only an hour.

All targets sounded good - and I'd like to comment that by only having a very short time to make your point, that shortness seems to make your spiel far better than if there was no time limit.

From Marc Burnell

Really enjoyed the meeting, got to see the familiar faces that I hear alot doing activism. We really let them have it. Lonnie Ali-wife of Muhammed Ali was down there.

The Bioethics Commissionis investigating only one narrow issue: Do present Federal Regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.

No one who testified at the first Bioethics Commission meeting dealt with the one and only question that the Commission is investigating. Everyone talked about harm suffered from abuse of electronic technology. No one tried to argue that the harm was coming from government. No one tried to argue that the harm was the result of government scientific studies.

DEW technology is available to the public. So the Commission needs to know why the witnesses think that what they experience is coming from government. The commission is not investigating electronic harm that comes from outside government.

Neither is the Commission investigating intentionally harmful attacks that come from within govrnment. It is only investigating the narrow question of whether Federal Regulations and international standards are sufficient safeguards to protect participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government. If you say or imply that government is attacking us instead of experimenting on us, you are taking yourselves outside the scope of the Commission's investigation.

How do those of you who will testify at the NY meeting plan to give testimony to convince the Committee that you and hundreds of other TI''s are involuntary participants in government scientific studies? If you know how to do this, you should be sharing your strategy with others who plan to testify. If you don't know how to do it, you should be asking a lawyer how you can present testimony in a way that will be relevant to the Commission's investigation.

I am a lawyer who can answer such questions, but instead of asking me how to present effective testimony, all the witnesses at the last meeting followed their own judgment and gave testimony that the Commission is justified in disregarding as being irrelevant to the Commission's investigation.

The Commission does not have the authority to investigate any issue other than the issue for which the President requested an investigation and report. Not one witness at the first meeting addressed the real issue that the Commission is investigating. All the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they were given at that meeting to provide the kind of evidence that the Commission could not ignore.

I have been giving legal strategy advice to TI's for 8 years. They have always ignored my legal advice and followed instead the advice of Anti-TI Activists who have told them to follow strategies that were useless and harmful. Any strategy that is useless is also harmful beause it prevents TI's from using time and energy in following a strategy that is effective.

Giving useless and irrelevant testimony to the Commission is useless and also harmful because it prevents you from taking advantage of the rare opportunity to speak directly to people who have the power to help us. All of the witnesses wasted the opportunity that they had at the last meeting.

Are the witnesses at the next meeting going to do the same? You have no hope of achieving a solution if you try to be your own lawyers instead of following the advice of a real lawyer who understands the TI situation.

Everyone outside the TI community understands the necessity of obtaining and following the best legal advice they can get. They pay a lot of money for good legal advice, but the results are worth the cost. Incredibly, TI's won't follow good legal advice even when they get it free. So they kept losing for 8 years when they could have been winning. And now they are setting themselves up to lose with the Bioethics Commission.

All the witnesses at the last Commission meeting followed a losing strategy by giving testimony that seemed irrelevant to the Commission's investigation. It looks like witnesses at the next meeting are going to do the same. You are blowing the great opportunity that the Commission is giving you.

Bob S

From Norman Rabin

May 9, 2011: A blue ribbon U.S. Government panel/commission, the federal Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments [ACHRE], studied their issue and related matters, and concluded that: U.S. Citizens (and others) are not protected from: "Non-Consensual U.S. Classified Human Research/ Experimentation". (October 1995, Final Report, of ACHRE)

Both Senator John Glenn's bill (S.193, 105th U.S. Congress, January 22, 1997, which never became law), and President Clinton's Administrative Order of governmentwide federal policy change (NOT completed before Clinton left office): "Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research", of March 27, 1997 [May 13, 1997, Federal Register], cited ACHRE's recommendation, and attempted to enact such, SPECIFIC protections.

The current Presidential Bioethics Commission does not have to re-invent the wheel. But, they could simply confirm the Truthful, timely, need for that Policy Change to be re-started, and to be completed. The Original Policy Change Notice was put forward as an 'Interim Federal Rule', which means that it would have taken effect immediately upon publication, and then, after a Public Comment Period, would have become finalized (hopefully intact and effective), an as 'Finalized Federal Rule'.

[[[ As lawyers know, and even as (believe it or not) law enforcement officers know: it is important that laws be specific. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE U.S. Constitution outlaws what we are targeted by. IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT Federal Rules generally require informed consent for Human Research/ Experimentation (but, there are loopholes, and exceptions, which President Clinton's order sought to close) IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT a law outlaws the use of surveillance devices to acquire 'information where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy'. Rather, in practice, when Classified matters are involved, normal procedures to stop a crime are not taken. That's why we need laws and federal regulations which specifically INCLUDE, or which specifically are designed for, (alleged or actual) Classified Human Research/ Experimentation.

There needs to be a LEGAL OBLIGATION incumbent upon the U.S. Government to reasonably investigate the alleged 'classified' wrongdoing. Law enforcement officers need specific laws to be able to take to a judge, to use as 'legal leverage' to investigate U.S. Intelligence, or U.S. military, facilities, operations, and persons. And, how many lawyers currently do litigation involving Secrecy? Answer: not too many at all. But, if a lawyer / lawfirm had a specific law saying 'Classified human Experimentation without informed consent is [strictly] prohibited', then at least they could try to cite that law, on behalf of a client, to cite that law to law enforcement, and/or to a federal judge, and try to assert that their client's specific rights be upheld.I wish that 'General laws', or the 'U.S. Constitution', or even the 'golden rule' or 'common law regarding assault and battery' were enough for us to be protected, but they aren't. That's why you had President Clinton [Yale Law grad, Constitutional law professor, Rhodes Scholar], trying to add a new type of, governmentwide, specific, federal regulation, specifically protecting citizens from Classified Human Research / Experimentation, without Informed Consent - NO EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED. ]]]

By Victor ThornOne of the stated purposes of a handpicked panel known as the Bioethics Commission is to apologize for past abuses committed by the U.S. government, some of which included the noted Tuskegee syphilis experiment, various unwarranted radiation tests and unwitting Guatemalan subjects infected with sexually transmitted diseases.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the Guatemalan STD case “clearly unethical.”

“I beg you, please help us,” said citizen Lisa Becker on March 1, when Obama’s Bioethics Commission met in Washington, D.C. Her gripping words were directed to Amy Gutmann, the head of this panel that is ostensibly concerned with past abuses even as present-day abuses are tossed in a padded room, so to speak.

However, the Bioethics Commission faced an unexpected moment during its public commentsession March 1 when 20 speakers delivered a powerfully distinct message: Non-consensual human experiments are still being conducted on thousands of Americans to this very day, and they want these abuses to stop.

OnApril 20, thisAFP writer participated in a conference call with many of the individuals who appeared in Washington before the commission.

One woman, 36-year-old Tammy Battaglia, described the process of brainmapping and said shehad been taken to a laboratory at CIA headquarters in Langley. Ms. Battaglia and others stressed that this type of abuse can even negatively affect other family members.

She told the commission, “I have not consented to be experimented on by any branch of thegovernment, military or members of the American Medical Association.

. . . Nobody should have the right to maim or torture any other person or to treat them in the cruel manner that I have been treated under the guise of national security.”

Ken Rhoades sent a videotape of the open microphone testimony to this writer, and what unfoldedon March 1 was riveting.

Texas doctor John Hall spoke of an alarming rate of complaints associated with the use of radiation weapons that are debilitating victims.

Author Allen Hornblum, who has written on the use of prison inmates and children as test subjects, emphasized, “Medical ethics is an orphan in today’s medical arena.”

Others that day reported burns on their bodies from torture, RFID tracking chips, the Navy’sProjectMedusa microwave weaponry, the implantation of false memories and additional forms of psychological torture.

During our conference call, John Peter Rosenholm delved into the subject of sub-vocal speech recognition before broaching the topic of a patented Army procedure that utilized “Voice-to-Skull Devices,” or V2K.

The Army’s own website describes V2K as, “A neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons by way of pulse-modulated microwaveradiation.”

Rosenholm also warned that the government “can falsely place someone in the hospital, then have a free ticket to do anything it wants.”

Another man known to AFP readers, former FBI agent Ted Gunderson, exposed the concept oforganized gang-stalking whereby targeted individuals are subjected to around-the-clock surveillance and harassment by rogue elements within law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Considering the long, well-documented history of secretive intelligence programs such as MK-ULTRA, if U.S. congressmen are fair game for mind control, should anyone be surprised that tests are still being conducted on everyday citizens without their consent? Or, as Gunderson commented, “This makes the old Cointelpro program look like a Boy Scout jamboree.”

Saddest of all, the public rarely sees a glimpse of these extreme tortures because, when the 20victims approached Ms. Gutmann and her Bioethics Commission, every member of the media present that day stood up and immediately left. All of these so-called journalists showed they are more than willing to promote the Obama agenda by focusing on past horrors, while ignoring the people still being abused today.

FFCHS Participates in the Fifth Meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

Non-consensual government experimentation is a daily reality for many thousands of victims in the US and worldwide. Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance (FFCHS), a human rights organization, hopes to have this issue addressed at an upcoming presidential commission meeting in New York City.http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8437614.htm

Cincinnati, OH (PRWEB) May 18, 2011 It is a rare opportunity when people in the electromagnetically-targeted community can speak directly to someone, anyone that is in a position to positively affect their situation. So the hopes of multitudes from the human rights group, Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance(FFCHS), seem to be riding on their participation in an upcoming meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues in New York City this Wednesday, May 18, 9 am at the Warwick Hotel on 65 W 54th Street. The topic for this meeting is ‘Human Research Protections’ where the commission will be examining “federal standards regarding human subjects protection in federally-funded scientific studies,” according to their website. The momentum is building in this small section of social activism for the simple reason that although targeted individuals face daunting struggles in almost every area of their lives: physically, emotionally, psychologically, medically, socially, financially, neurologically and more, no agency, organization, or institution so far will acknowledge or address the claims of its victims, which further adds to their burden.

“We have been calling this issue ‘the secret holocaust’ because we believe that remote mind control programming is being carried out on many, many thousands of people nationwide by the military and intelligence agencies using classified technologies that can remotely access and manipulate an individual mentally and physically whether they are aware of it or not,” says Derrick Robinson, president of FFCHS.From 1946 – 1948 the United States non-consensually infected Guatemalan prisoners and mental patients in a medical trial for syphilis. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11457552) The recent revelation of this atrocity sparked the creation of the Bioethics Commission by President Obama as it holds its fifth public meeting, which will be particularly marked by the scheduled appearance of Rafael Espada, M.D., the Vice-President of Guatemala, on May 18th. While the commission grapples with the question of whether those who participate in federally-funded human test trials are protected, there continue to be those who find they are victims of non-consensual federally-funded human test programs. What of them? Even Members of Congress have been subjected to non-consensual ‘Psy-Ops’ mind control operations by the US Army, as reported by Rolling Stone magazine in an article on February 23rd of this year, and denounced in a letter to Congress by the ACLU as reported by "The New Political" of Ohio State University.The letter states: “The Rolling Stone article reports that U.S. Army officers assigned to an “information operations” cell allege they were directed by their commanders to help them “secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge” and plant ideas “inside their heads” so they would provide more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.” (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223)Silent Sound technologies that subliminally influence human thought and emotion were developed in the early 90’s by Dr. Oliver Lowery of Norcross Georgia. They are now in deployment by the US government and “was used throughout Operation Desert Storm (Iraq) quite successfully," according to Edward Tilton, the president of Silent Sounds, Inc., in a letter dated December 13, 1996. (http://www.newsfinder.org/site/more/electronic_mind_control/)From Rolling Stone: "My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line." FFCHS believes many lines are being crossed here in the US daily. The organization was formed to address human rights violations brought about by the abuses of what it believes are non-consensual federally-funded mind control research programs. It seeks a halt to such programs and justice for those who are their victims. FFCHS is therefore requesting a vigilant and uncompromising report to the President by the Bioethics Commission of these issues and further requests congressional hearings and an investigation into the covert activities of all U.S. intelligence agencies.

Keith Johnsonis an independent journalist and the editor of “Revolt of thePlebs,” an alternative news website that can be found at RevoltofthePlebs.com .

By Frank Whalen

On May 18-19 in New York City, the President’sCommission on Bioethics convenedonce again. Hundreds of people registered tospeak about their firsthand experiences asunwilling test subjects of ongoing government experiments.

However, only 20 were selected to speak; theywere each given a paltry 90 seconds to summarize storiesthat covered a lifetime of abuse.

AFP previously reported on targeted individualsspeaking before the Bioethics Commission at itsWashington, D.C. meeting in March, and this latestforum resulted in more obstructionism.

This reporter spoke with several individuals presentin NYE. They mentioned supposed emails sent to peoplegranting them time to speak, only to discover theyhad never been sent. Others weren’t permitted to speak,only to learn later that they could have spoken. One eyewitnessdescribed the disorganization as “a deliberateeffort to confuse the participants in an attempt to quashthis information.”

Aside from AFP, media outlets consider this stuffuntouchable. Participants recounted how, at the mostrecent NYE hearing, “The room was dismissed for abreak and then we were called back to speak. With theexception of two [reporters], the rest did not return.”

Many details were given from those who have beenrepeatedly victimized. Some people spoke about gangstalking where strangers speak to individuals about personalmatters that they should not know about. Suchoccurrences could be coincidental, but as they happenseveral times a day, even while traveling across statelines, it suggests that surveillance is being used.

When AFP asked about the purpose of this harassment,it was suggested that the perpetrators want tobreed paranoia and fear in their victims. Others mentioneda connection to InfraGuard.

According to its website, InfraGuard is “an associationof businesses, academic institutions, state and locallaw enforcement agencies and other participants dedicatedto sharing information and intelligence to preventhostile acts against the United States.” Utilizing citizenspies and corporate partners in the private sector wouldcertainly lead to comprehensive scrutiny on anyone.

It’s clear that allowing a subject to know how thoroughlythey were being watched would make them suspiciousof anyone with whom they came into contact.

It’s easy to see how these psychological operationsare useful to the elite. As technologies are tested andresults gathered, the stealthy evolution of governmentsanctionedmind control programs like MK-ULTRAcould be used, amazing though this may sound, to createthousands of “Manchurian candidate” automatons thatbecome the domestic terrorists officials are alwayswarning us about.

During AFP’s conference call, one woman identifiedas Leslie claims she discovered devices implanted in herbody with no recollection of the surgery. She mentionedpresenting visual proof to the commission.

The President’s Commission on Bioethics acknowledges,and even seems remorseful about, experimentsperpetrated against American citizens.

Unfortunately, the media and elected representativesare unwilling to admit that these supposedly dissolvedprograms evidently still exist, and that they’re still harminginnocent victims.

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, regarding international human research subjects, contacted people who had registered with commission staff assistant Esther Yoo to speak at a May 18-19 meeting. The commission advised people, in an email, that, due to an overwhelming number of individuals who wanted to give oral testimony (over 300, as stated by Dr. Wagner, co-chair of the meeting), “we did a lottery to choose names at random.”

The email went on to state: “Unfortunately, yours was not chosen. We hope this does not discourage you from attending the meeting. We would be delighted to have you there. Please bring your written comments with you to submit to the commission.”

People not chosen to speak showed up anyway. Their written testimony was eerily similar to others who said they were the subject of nonconsensual experimentation, including radiation, laser and mind-control weapons.

Also changed was the day to speak, which was the first day instead of the second. Perhaps someone was hoping people would show up on the second day to speak and therefore would not be speaking at all. The room rented for this second meeting was half the size of the room for the first meeting in February, which had fewer people in attendance than the 300-plus people who called Ms. Yoo to announce they would be coming to the meeting in May. Another change made to the agenda was posting a guard at the door, keeping people from entering the meeting once it started, even though seating was available.

An overflow crowd congregated in the lobby, and as the testimony of victims was being recorded by other victims, hotel management asked people to stop any recording. The hotel was asked for their wireless Internet code so the Presidential Bioethics Commission could be watched on a computer by those turned away. Yet, hotel management told people to stop watching while waiting in the lobby.

Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent in charge of 700 men in Los Angeles when he retired, did not attend the meeting due to medical reasons. Mr. Gunderson became a targeted individual for speaking against corruption. He admitted he was involved in COINTELPRO 30 years ago, but said it paled in comparison to what victims are now enduring. Gunderson convinced the commission to allow another speaker to read his testimony. However, when that speaker arrived at the meeting, he was told he could not speak on Gunderson’s behalf. Gunderson passed away on July 31.

It seemed as though the commission was trying to discourage anyone from attending and speaking. Unimpeded, there would have been up to 600 people representing the public at this hearing. Holding the meeting in the middle of Manhattan had its own challenges for people coming in from all over the United States. Perhaps that’s why people couldn’t get to the meeting at the exact starting time.

The Manhattan meeting location, the small conference room, emails discouraging participation, hotel management interference, coupled with all that people have gone through as targeted individuals by way of torture and mind control is reminiscent of the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Only the very persistent made it to the meeting in the end.

From 1946-1948, a team of medical researchers in the United States Public Health Service intentionally infected more than 1,300 Guatemalan prison inmates, psychiatric patients, commercial sex workers and soldiers with sexually transmitted diseases. The team also used children in diagnostic testing. Done completely without consent, their experiments resulted in a living hell for many of their subjects.

Today the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues delivered a report to President Obama that details this shameful chapter in American medical history.

The Commission concludes that those involved in this research violated the ethical standards not only of our time but also of theirs. As is evident by their own internal communications—and the fact that just a few years earlier they obtained the informed consent of prisoners in Terre Haute, Indiana before conducting experiments there—these doctors also were morally culpable: they knew there was a moral requirement to obtain informed consent. But they chose not to ask for it in Guatemala. And they went to great lengths to keep their experiments as secret as possible while still obtaining funding from higher-level authorities who should have disapproved the experiments.

Why should we today care about ill conceived experiments that took place some 60 years ago? First, by shining light on this dark chapter of our history, we honor the victims. We acknowledge that American doctors denied Guatemalans the respect they deserved as fellow human beings and violated their most basic human rights.

Second, we need to learn essential practical as well as ethical lessons from the Guatemalan experiments so that nothing like this happens again. The United States now has many more rules and regulations governing medical experiments on human subjects than it had in the 1940′s and 50′s. But can we be confident that all researchers actually recognize the implications of these rules when they conduct their experiments at home and abroad?

The doctors and their superiors who approved the Guatemalan experiments obtained the informed consent of human subjects in the Indiana prison, but they applied a double standard when they left the country and shielded themselves from critical scrutiny. Yet every ethical principle that applies to how American researchers treat human subjects in this country also governs how they should treat human subjects everywhere. The first sentence of the Nuremberg Code, written in 1947 in the wake of medical experiments conducted by Nazi doctors, could not have been clearer in stating that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.”

Informed consent is necessary but not enough. Sound scientific research demands that, even with informed consent, researchers not inflict harms disproportionate to prospective benefits. In Guatemala, doctors inoculated people with sexually transmitted diseases before completing the diagnostic experiments needed to determine the actual effects of the inoculations. Research design and record keeping were haphazard at best. When in April 1947, a doctor publicly noted (in t

Did you know that your public comments, which were submitted to the Bioethics Commission should be provided to the HHS/OHRP? I was not aware that the HHS/OHRP was accepting comments. Did anyone know about this?I don't want our comments to sit there collecting dust because the Bioethics Commission did not make our comments public. Please read my letter below, I made a request to the Bioethics Commission to provide our public comments to the OHRP, I would suggest others to do the same. You can use the same format. I have to follow-up with a phone call. Bioethics Commission number is 202-233-3960 and Jerry Menikoff 240-453-6900 or 1-866-447-4777.

Re: Submission of Public Comments Provided to Bioethics Commission in May 2011 & Providing Them To Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) As Per The Federal Register

Dear Ms. Bonham and Mr. Menikoff,

On March 2, 2011, The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues issued the Federal Register (76 FR 11482 dated March 2, 2011) requesting public comments on the Federal and International standards for protecting the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government. Those public comments were never made public. I submitted my 14 page comments on May 2, 2011. I noticed that I submitted the wrong version and after speaking with Esther Yoo, she indicated that the public comments were being reviewed and that she did receive the new comments, which were submitted on May 3, 2011. She indicatedthat it was no problem. In addition, the Bioethics Commission was still accepting comments at the May 17 and 18, 2011, which I provided my original comments, as well as, comments from 9 others. Will you take into account those comments provided at the March 1, 2011 and the May meeting as well? None of the public comments, which were submitted to the Bioethics Commission, were ever made public.

According to the Department Health & Human Services, Federal Register 45 CFR Parts 46, 160, and 164 for Docket ID Number HHS-OPHS-2011-005, which closed on October 26, 2011, it states, “As we consider how the current regulations governing human subjects research should be revised, we will take into account the deliberations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. We will also consider the public comments received on the request for information that the Commission issued on March 2, 2011, that sought public comment on the current Federal and international standards for protecting the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.” Did the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues provide the public comments submitted to them as depicted in the HHS’s Federal Register to them,

President Obama directed his Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Commission) to review human subject protections to “determine if Federal regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.” Obama ordered the report last year in response to revelations that in the 1940s, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted unethical research on human subjects without their consent. U.S. researchers intentionally infected over 1,500 human subjects in Guatemala with sexually transmitted diseases. The Commission issued a report last December 14th and concluded that current U.S. rules are adequate and would prevent such abuses from happening again.

However, the Commission disregarded the lack of legal reforms for nearly half a million victims of unethical Cold War government research. The Cold War research was often conducted in secret and without consent. The ethical consensus today is that a person must agree to participate in any research and must be informed about the possible risks, known as informed consent. But bureaucratic roadblocks prevented crucial legal reforms from being implemented, including the requirement of informed consent in classified research. Today, U.S. law still allows for a waiver of informed consent.

The Commission report should have recommended an informed consent requirement for classified research but did not. Instead, the report’s central finding was that “the U.S. system provides substantial protections for the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects.” In failing its mandate, the Commission has put the public at risk for further unethical experiments in classified research. Significantly, the number of Cold War victims far surpassed the total number of victims of unclassified research, as in Guatemala, making the Commission’s failed mandate even more egregious shocking and inexcusable.

Between 1940 and 1974, Americans were used in military-related Cold War experiments involving radiation, blister and nerve agents, biological agents, LSD, and more. The story made headline news in the early 1990s and the public was outraged. Another presidential panel, the Advisory Committee for Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) issued a 1995 report on the Cold War research and stated that the federal government was “blameworthy for not having had policies and practices in place to protect the rights and interests of human subjects.” The ACHRE recommended two special rules to protect human subjects in classified research; an absolute informed consent requirement, and an independent review panel that must approve any classified research.

A 1997 memorandum issued by then President Clinton included both the ACHRE recommendation to prohibit a waiver of informed consent in classified research, and also a modification of the ACHRE’s second special rule. But the Clinton memorandum was never implemented. Despite reform efforts, since 1991, the federal regulations for the protection of human subjects have remained unchanged. The regulations are popularly known as the Common Rule, and cover both classified and unclassified research.

The Common Rule is found at 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46. CFR 46.101(i) allows a director of a federal department or intelligence agency to waive any of the Common Rule requirements, including the informed consent requirement and to do so in secret. The waiver effectively nullifies the regulations, and as happened in past Cold War experiments, allows for a complete lack of protections for human subjects in classified research, at the discretion of top officials.

The endnotes of Obama’s Commission report briefly mentioned the current rules that cover classified research; an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must include a nongovernmental member and must review classified research, and expedited review is not allowed. However, without the consent requirement, U.S. rules still fail to meet even the minimal standards for adequate human subject protections today.

Nonconsensual human experimentation is a violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. government has acknowledged as much in a U.S. Department of State report and past presidential commission reports. Today, human subjects have the constitutional right to informed consent but they don’t have the necessary tools–a rule or statute–to exercise that right.

The ethical consensus for the informed consent requirement and the constitutional right to be free from nonconsensual experiments provide a solid foundation for long overdue reforms. Additionally, the ACHRE special rules and Clinton’s memorandum support that informed consent in classified research is sound public policy.

It is true, most experts believe that the ethical standards and U.S. rules in place today would prevent the large numbers of Cold War experiments from happening again. While that may have been the thinking of the Commission, this disregards the overwhelming evidence that the legal requirement of informed consent in classified research is essential for adequate human subject protections.

Obama will now act on the Commission report and public opinion can make a difference. Let’s ask Obama to finish what Clinton started and give human subjects the legal tools to ensure substantial protections, a U.S. rule or statute that requires informed consent in classified research.

For ethical consensus for informed consent, see ACHRE, ‘Research Ethics and the Medical Profession, Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments’, (7 August 1996), 276, No 5, Journal of the American Medical Association, (JAMA), p.405.

For failure to implement Clinton memorandum, see email from Pat Elhinnawy, HHS OHRP, Director, Public Affairs to author (1 April 2009) (on file with author).

Common Rule, Federal Policy For the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Protection of Human Subjects 46 at 46.101(i)

For illegality of CIA experiments, see Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States, Report to the President (Rockefeller Commission Report), (Washington, U.S. GPO, June 1975), p.37

For informed consent under U.S. Constitution, see John Shattuck, United States Department of State Civil and Political Rights in the United States Initial Report of the United States of America to the U.N. Human Rights Committee Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), (1994), p.73

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues is composed of 13 members and was established in November of 2009 by way of Executive Order 13521 which was issued by President Barrack H. Obama.

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will conduct its eighth meeting in February. At this meeting, the Commission will discuss issues of privacy and access related to human genome sequence data.

The Commission will also be discussing neuroscience and related ethical issues.

DATES:

The meeting will take place February 2, 2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:15 p.m. and on February 3, 2012, from 9 a.m. to approximately 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: Millberry Union, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143, (415) 476–2019

"so you see the car horns/nosy from neighbours part of the cause and harassment
i don't ...I see it as the effect/symptom/consequence being assaulted by electronic harassment/mind control technology and part of the psychological impact…"

We have reason to be afraid of the Jesuits, who own and control the Vatican from behind the scenes. They appear to be the real new world order crime cabal. The Jesuit order was founded in 1534. Pope Clement VIX abolished the Jesuit order in 1773. The Jesuits then needed a new organization to hide behind so they created the Illuminati as a front. The Illuminati is simply a distraction to take the focus of attention away from the activities of the Jesuits. The Rothschilds did not come into power…See More

"so what you saying is even thou you going such extreme situation ,trumatic ...messes with your mind and body under the inflence of it ....it has no psylogical impact on YOU and it does not effect/alter how you function in socety or your…"